Get Backlinks

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations: result contents (source path, line number, surrounding text) and a fallback matching strategy ('falls back to basename matching if exact match fails'). It does not mention pagination or ordering, but the added context is substantial.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is four sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and each sentence contributes useful information: result fields, use cases, and path handling. There is little waste, though the use-case sentence could arguably be slightly tightened.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description appropriately explains the return shape (source note path, line number, surrounding text). Combined with annotations covering safety and idempotency, it gives an agent enough to call the tool correctly. Minor gaps like result ordering or pagination are not critical for a read-only list tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining that paths are accepted with or without the .md extension and that basename matching is used as a fallback. This clarifies runtime behavior for the single path parameter, which the schema does not specify.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'List all notes that contain a wikilink pointing to the target note.' It precisely defines the direction of the relationship, distinguishing this from the sibling get_outlinks tool without needing to name it. An agent can confidently identify this as the inbound-link lookup.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives clear use cases: 'Use to understand which notes reference a topic, or to assess the impact of renaming or deleting a note.' This provides strong context for when to call the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as get_outlinks for outgoing links or find_broken_links for broken links, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.